207 replies to this topic

[Bench Racer]

But (for parity) Pretty sure the 99 can't be choked down anymore so the balls in 1.6's court.

 

IDK, like I said I've been wrong before.

J~

 

You race one of those 99 correct, disconnect the solenoid that controls the flutter flys, secure the flutterflys in an open positin and report back after some time on track. It shouldn't take much track time.   Or do it on a dyno and report back. If you'd like I could talk with the ECU player in Texas about re-mapping the 99 ECU.

 

[Johnny D]

For the record, I haven't taken my head/manifold off, built my engine or anything.

 

I can change the RP, so I'm not sure why your showing me this when the RP chokes it, but...

 

But you knock yourself out David, send those letter, collect those 1.6 contacts, search the web to for info, to keep justice(parity) in the world.

J~

[Bench Racer]

For the record, I haven't taken my head/manifold off, built my engine or anything.

 

I can change the RP, so I'm not sure why your showing me this when the RP chokes it, but...

 

But you knock yourself out David, send those letter, collect those 1.6 contacts, search the web to for info, to keep justice(parity) in the world.

J~

For the record, I've never opened the hood on a 1999 VIS engined car. If I owned a 99 car I'd sure as hell understand the VIS, restrictor or no restrictor. Take the friken restrictor out and do a breif test or dyno test or ask you engine builder. I'll presume your torque below 5,000 rpm will be weaker. You Mr. moderator should shorten your sarcasm and learn more about the engine/race car you drive.

[Johnny D]

I'm a mechanical designer and work in a Machine Shop, I could assemble an engine, I just have not. Helped with Alberto's if that counts.

 

I really don't care about your 5500 rpm whatever. And you just said the RX7 would be good, still no power under 5500.

Their different ways to skin a cat (I don't skin cats)

 

Slow at 1st, fast on the top ??

Fast on the bottom, low on the top, IDK.

Just so it make good racing/laptimes.

 

I'm open minded, your stuck on 5500 and then agree the RX7 is ok.

 

J~

[Bench Racer]

I'm a mechanical designer and work in a Machine Shop, I could assemble an engine, I just have not. Helped with Alberto's if that counts.

 

I really don't care about your 5500 rpm whatever. And you just said the RX7 would be good, still no power under 5500.

Their different ways to skin a cat (I don't skin cats)

 

Slow at 1st, fast on the top ??

Fast on the bottom, low on the top, IDK.

Just so it make good racing/laptimes.

 

I'm open minded, your stuck on 5500 and then agree the RX7 is ok.

 

J~

Kudos to you for being involved with Alberto.

 

Minus one kudos for you being a mechanical engineer and not having much interest in what's under your hood.

 

As I recently read,kudos grand pa.

 

The RX7 AFM was thrown out as an item that adds hp above 6,000 rpm, my posting the follow up info was aimed to Saul.

 

Being your a mechanical engineer I could throw out a dyno graph from a 1.6 that get's the torque below 5,500 rpm real close to where it needs to be and you could do some simple math for comparison to the enegines on the Drago dyno graph. No need at this time to share the graph with all the negative bull$hit that flys around this site.

[ChrisA]

 

[Bench Racer]

"Do it no matter what. If you believe in it, it is something very honorable. If somebody around you or your family does not understand it, then that's their problem. But if you do have a passion, an honest passion, just do it." 
 

[Johnny D]

The CRB presented a package to the BoD in Topeka on Saturday.  The final minutes and Fastrack should be up momentarily. 
 
wheel

 

I can play more music while we're waiting but...

 

Can we hear a little about this package ??
If it not just "run 2014 rule", and a bushing ?

J~

[Dave McAnaney]

The SMAC met last night and I want to provide some details to help everyone move forward and get ready to race in 2015.

 

First of all the CRB informed us that the BoD approved their (our) recommendation pretty much as it was written in the latest FastTrak.  Unfortunately the posting of the BoD minutes has been delayed due to folks being on holiday break, but those should be posted soon.  The major parts of the recommendation include firming up the plunge cut specification and adding a 1.5mm allowance for deburring.  Outside of weights and plates, the SMAC does not plan on instituting any other engine-related rule changes in 2015.

 

Regarding the “super committee” - their investigation and dyno work is still in process and we do not expect any actionable recommendations from them for a while.  As Jim Wheeler pointed out, any recommendations from the “super committee” will go through the normal rules process involving the SMAC and CRB.  The BoD-mandated rules change period for 2015 is pretty much closed at this point, so any rule change recommendations will need to go through the normal rules process including putting the proposals out for member input to be considered for the 2016 GCR.  The SMAC is against making any rule changes mid-season as a result of the super committee’s findings.

 

Now that engine rules for 2015 are clear we are looking at competition adjustments (weights and plates) for next year.  We appreciate everyone’s input and we will be rolling out some minor adjustments, but these may not come out for a couple months to accommodate testing and supply time.  We will let you know the details as soon as we have a definitive decision.

 

Thanks for everyone’s patience and understanding during this trying time.  Now let’s get back to racing!

 

Dave McAnaney
Spec Miata Advisory Committee

[James York]

Thank you Dave for the information of today's status regarding the 2015 rules for SM.

[FTodaro]

Thank you Dave, so it looks as if we can rest assured that we are not looking at stock heads and i think we all can say that is a good thing. It was interesting to see that only a small percentage of people felt that a stock head was a good thing. A lot of people were vary exited about this in the beginning and harsh words were passed out. As it turns out, the class will move forward and i think a reasonable solution was found. In some respects its good to see that so many people feel so strongly about this class and this little hobby. It was the class involvement that helped resolve the problem. While every good solution does not make any one side 100% happy, everyone i think benefited from the resolution vs. all going to a stock head. I would like to thank all of the members who took the time to write to the CRB, BOD and others and voiced their opinions about what they wanted to see. Much better result than sitting on the sidelines.

 

I also want to thank a few people who work hard on putting together a Petition committee who spent countless hrs, calls trying to put together a credible response to the initial proposal that we felt was not in the best interest of the class. Specifically Tom Sager, Craig Janssen,Skip Brock, Tom Fowler and Mike Collins. Also I can't forget Caveman as he was the one instigating early about doing a petition. Also Jim Stewart, for giving us and education about the technical issues. 

 

I think its pretty cool that a group as diverse  as ours can agree on some points disagree on others but come together to move the needle in a positive direction.

 

I would also thank the members of the SCCA, BOD, CRB, SMAC, NASA, include John Mueller, the members of the super committee for listening to the concerns of the members. There was nothing easy about this process for those in the decision making ring.

 

I am looking forward to going racing and getting back to what attracts us all to this class. Having fun.

[LarryKing]

So basically nothing changed from pre-2014 Runoffs.

[Brandon]

It's not a case of 'nothing changed' - there has been two refinements of the various 'plunge cut rule' lines and an inclusion of an offset control arm bushing to eliminate cheating of static suspension settings with bent (on purpose or not) parts.

 

Here is the refinement of the plunge cut rules as I understand them (and the 'whys'):

 

1. Plunge cut must be concentric with the axial centerline of the valve (ensures no funny business with possible hand or offset cut plunges)

2. The allowance of tooling marks to be present within 1.5mm of the end of the plunge cut (permits 'standard machining practices)

[Johnny D]

Brandon have you seen the SCCA press release, saves a lot of time.  Post 129
http://mazdaracers.c...ge-7#entry71720

Rule GCR 9.1.7.C.1.f.3, regarding cylinder heads, now reads: “The throat area of the port consists of the 90 degree angle at the very bottom of the cast steel valve seat as it transitions to the aluminum casting below. It is permitted to plunge cut the throats in order to correct for core shift that is commonly found in many cylinder heads. The cut must be cylindrical and concentric to the valve guide axial centerline, within a tolerance of .005”, for the entire length of the cut. The radius tangent to the cylindrical and bottom surfaces shall not exceed 0.375". This cut cannot extend further than the specified number below from the bottom of the ferrous valve seat. There can be no tooling or machine marks in the head below this point. The Intersection of the machined surface of the plunge cut to the port casting shall not be altered, except that the area under the short turn radius may be de-burred, with the de-burring not to exceed 1.5 mm in width. The 90 degree bend at the bottom of the valve seat and the aluminum directly below it will be measured with a gauge and must conform to the maximum diameters and depths listed below.”
 
Also SCCA now know how to "whistle" a head properly.
Found a bunch of people that were not on both topics.
And Class Compliance Chief to find some more.
 
Working on closer parity for 2016.
 
It's gotten better.
J~

[john mueller]

So basically nothing changed from pre-2014 Runoffs.

 

Really?  Dude.

[Keith Andrews]

http://vimeo.com/100003364

[Brocodile]

I wish to join those thanking the SCCA officials up ad down the line for producing a reasonable rule revision for the SM cylinder head. As Frank Todaro mentioned, I was part of the ad hoc committee that drafted and published the petition which helped focus the attention of both drivers and officials on a constructive approach to this issue. All of us also cooperated to keep the forum threads on point. It was a rewarding experience in many respects, not the least of which was getting to know some of my fellow drivers from around the USA who are dedicated to promoting the class.

 

The tremendous level of interest which this controversy generated is convincing evidence of the health of this class. After all the dust cleared, it became apparent that the rules needed no more than a tweak, and that enforcement was the real problem. Personally, I wish the Whistler and STR protests had been unnecessary; however, the facts speak for themselves. The new SM-specific compliance chief should help avoid the need for more protests in the future.

 

Looking ahead to 2015, I anticipate some of the best Spec Miata racing in years. 

[Brian Ghidinelli]

Many thanks to all those who worked diligently to keep the train on the tracks.  This class is awesome and while it has warts, I'm glad you've found a way to improve it rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater and start all over. 

[Alberto]

so what are we supposed to argue about the rest of the winter?

[Ron Alan]

So basically nothing changed from pre-2014 Runoffs.

Clarification...nothing changed for many who understood the rules as they were written.

But here is my take on what did change...a change in the attitude at the top of SCCA. Hopefully this embarrassment only strengthens the class and all SCCA classes.

A lot of hard work(and hard feelings)got us to this point. Thanks to all those that were part of the effort...from the protestors, to the COA,SCCA, NASA, Mazda, AD HOC group, SMAC, CRB and BOD. The best class in amateur racing should only get better!